Moss v Bice [2026] QCAT 144

[1] At the hearing of the original application on 15 November 2024 (the "original proceedings"), the tribunal made orders with the consent of the parties that finalised the dispute (the "consent order").

[2] By application made to the tribunal on 17 July 2025 (the "amending application"), the applicant (who was the applicant in the original proceedings) seeks to amend the consent order "to be ongoing". The applicant also states that the amendment "will confirm to [the respondent] our discussion and intent of the agreement made including attention and maintenance of the overgrown garden as per QCAT order NDR 069-23".[1]

[3] As a result of the amending application, the tribunal made directions which included direction two to the effect that the respondent was required to provide submissions including whether the respondent agrees with or opposes the orders sought in the amending application.

[4] By email dated 15 December 2025, the respondent provided his submissions and stated therein that he opposes the consent order being amended as proposed by the applicant.

[5] The amending application states on page one that it is an application "to amend a settlement order".[2]

[6] The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) caters for this type of application at s 88 which relevantly provides -

(1) An order under this division giving effect to a settlement for a proceeding has the same effect as if it were an order made by the tribunal after deciding the proceeding.

(2) The parties to the proceeding may apply to the tribunal for an amendment of the order if the order does not reflect the intention of the parties in the settlement.

(3) An application under subsection (2) must be made jointly by all the parties to the proceeding.

(4) The tribunal may, on the application of the parties under this section, amend the terms of the order if the tribunal is satisfied -

(a) the amendment reflects the intention of the parties; and

(b) the tribunal could make a decision in the terms of the settlement after the amendment, or consistent with the terms of the settlement after the amendment.

[7] The respondent's letter of 15 December 2025 is clear in stating that the respondent opposes the application. The opening passage on page one of the letter states "I hereby provide you with the following submissions opposing the orders sought in the application." He further states in the next paragraph that "I strongly deny the claim by [the applicant] that a verbal agreement for ongoing maintenance of the garden occurred and formed the basis of the order."

[8] Section 88(3) extracted above clearly states that an application to amend an order must be made jointly by all parties in the settlement.

[9] As the respondent opposes the application, it is therefore not made jointly by all the parties to the proceeding. As such it is outside the scope of orders that can be made using s 88.

[10] I therefore order that the application for reopening, correction, renewal or amendment filed on 17 July 2025 is dismissed.

[1] Application Form 43 (version 2) filed 17 July 2025, page 4 of 5 item 4.